President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

31 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Crazy notion: Kennedy is crazy like a fox. Did he know the IAC was inept and put it on display. Why? After this does anybody want him to deal with them again? Or, for that matter, the IAC's parent the University Senate. He's just proven one body inept, and de facto maybe the other. 

Pretty bold for me to make that wild assumption. However, from the start he said the final call was his alone. I thought he did this as an olive branch. Who knows, it could be more than that. Remember: he is a politician. And politically he just took the teeth right out of the IAC and the University Senate. 

Before we celebrate the man's genius, let us remember that his role is being relegated to that of a butcher. He will literally reduce the footprint of UND Athletics in ways unimaginable not long ago. None of the programs deserves to be cut, and none deserves to be spared more than another. Balancing the budget on the backs of innocent programs, coaches, and students. I'm not so sure being "inept" at ruthless, arbitrary decision-making with painful consequences and zero objective guidance is a bad thing. But that's why he's paid the big bucks.

A leader will have looked for alternatives, leaving no stone unturned, and assure us there are none.

A leader will do whatever can be done for those affected, including generous severance and compassionate transitions, to the point where they are--to a person--assured everything has been done, practically feeling foolish for their own grief.

A leader will show up at the sunset matches, games, competitions for each affected sport. (Looking at you, baseball finale no-show administrators.)

A leader won't sweep everything under the rug and pop up in luxury suites at sacred cow, money-pit sports waving the University flag as if nothing is wrong.

A leader will continue to look for opportunities, will hold the surviving programs accountable, and will not spend money lavishly or foolishly on any athletic endeavor.

A leader will recognize the impact of his actions on morale, and the need for healing, and not make stupid, off-the-cuff remarks about how the Department is now poised for greatness.

I hope we have a leader.

[SiouxVolley]

13 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Before we celebrate the man's genius, let us remember that his role is being relegated to that of a butcher. He will literally reduce the footprint of UND Athletics in ways unimaginable not long ago. None of the programs deserves to be cut, and none deserves to be spared more than another. Balancing the budget on the backs of innocent programs, coaches, and students. I'm not so sure being "inept" at ruthless, arbitrary decision-making with painful consequences and zero objective guidance is a bad thing. But that's why he's paid the big bucks.

A leader will have looked for alternatives, leaving no stone unturned, and assure us there are none.

A leader will do whatever can be done for those affected, including generous severance and compassionate transitions, to the point where they are--to a person--assured everything has been done, practically feeling foolish for their own grief.

A leader will show up at the sunset matches, games, competitions for each affected sport. (Looking at you, baseball finale no-show administrators.)

A leader won't sweep everything under the rug and pop up in luxury suites at sacred cow, money-pit sports waving the University flag as if nothing is wrong.

A leader will continue to look for opportunities, will hold the surviving programs accountable, and will not spend money lavishly or foolishly on any athletic endeavor.

A leader will recognize the impact of his actions on morale, and the need for healing, and not make stupid, off-the-cuff remarks about how the Department is now poised for greatness.

I hope we have a leader.

Seems like your desperate for Kelley to come back with his empty platitudes.

Loss of a sport is not like the loss of a life or career, as you seem to say.  DI sports is a business, and what doesn't pay or help with awareness for the U goes out the window.  It's not a nursery school anymore.

[swimfan]

Kennedy says he wants sports to be competitive.  My name shows my biases, but get this:

Winning record against Division I programs in past year (Best to worst):

• Hockey (Women) 18-12-5
• Swimming (Women) 4-3
• Swimming (Men) - 3-3
• Softball 17-37
• Soccer 4-12-2
• Tennis (Men) 1-14
• Tennis (Women) 0-18
• Golf (Women) -

Operating expenses per athlete: (Least to most expensive)

• Swimming (Women) $4503
• Swimming (Men) - $4664
• Tennis (Men) $5081
• Golf (Women) - $5721
• Tennis (Women) $5823
• Soccer $6261
• Softball $8754
• Hockey (Women) $18652

Team GPA - National ranking (Best to worst)

• Swimming (Men) - 3.33 - 10th
• Swimming (Women) - 3.50 - 25th
• Tennis (Men) -
• Tennis (Women)
• Soccer -
• Softball -
• Golf (Women) -
• Hockey (Women) -

Conference Finish / National Rank (Best to worst)

• Hockey (Women) - 4/8 - 10th
• Swimming (Men) - 5/7 - 41st
• Swimming (Women) - 6/8 - 64th
• Soccer - 10/11
• Tennis (Men) - 11/12
• Golf (Women) - 11/12
• Softball - 8/8
• Tennis (Women) - 12/12

So if I'm ranking them - I'd start with the teams that are dead last in their conference and most expensive.  Question is - how deep are the cuts?

[SiouxVolley]

28 minutes ago, swimfan said:

Kennedy says he wants sports to be competitive.  My name shows my biases, but get this:

Winning record against Division I programs in past year (Best to worst):

• Hockey (Women) 18-12-5
• Swimming (Women) 4-3
• Swimming (Men) - 3-3
• Softball 17-37
• Soccer 4-12-2
• Tennis (Men) 1-14
• Tennis (Women) 0-18
• Golf (Women) -

Operating expenses per athlete: (Least to most expensive)

• Swimming (Women) $4503
• Swimming (Men) - $4664
• Tennis (Men) $5081
• Golf (Women) - $5721
• Tennis (Women) $5823
• Soccer $6261
• Softball $8754
• Hockey (Women) $18652

Team GPA - National ranking (Best to worst)

• Swimming (Men) - 3.33 - 10th
• Swimming (Women) - 3.50 - 25th
• Tennis (Men) -
• Tennis (Women)
• Soccer -
• Softball -
• Golf (Women) -
• Hockey (Women) -

Conference Finish / National Rank (Best to worst)

• Hockey (Women) - 4/8 - 10th
• Swimming (Men) - 5/7 - 41st
• Swimming (Women) - 6/8 - 64th
• Soccer - 10/11
• Tennis (Men) - 11/12
• Golf (Women) - 11/12
• Softball - 8/8
• Tennis (Women) - 12/12

So if I'm ranking them - I'd start with the teams that are dead last in their conference and most expensive.  Question is - how deep are the cuts?

If it was me making the decision, M/W Tennis and softball would get cut.

And not for the reasons above, but because those sports don't have adequate facilities on campus and there is no plans to build them.

A new outdoor track is on the books with a soccer field and stands, so soccer at least is in the plans.

But if was me, MW swimming would get dumped too, and replace them with M/W lacrosse.  Swimming doesn't bring many spectators or athletes, but lax would have a major impact on walk on enrollment.

Sorry.  Admire what you do and appreciate the effort and dedication.

Wish we could afford more sports, but we're not DII anympre.

[cberkas]

2 hours ago, SiouxVolley said:

If it was me making the decision, M/W Tennis and softball would get cut.

And not for the reasons above, but because those sports don't have adequate facilities on campus and there is no plans to build them.

A new outdoor track is on the books with a soccer field and stands, so soccer at least is in the plans.

But if was me, MW swimming would get dumped too, and replace them with M/W lacrosse.  Swimming doesn't bring many spectators or athletes, but lax would have a major impact on walk on enrollment.

Sorry.  Admire what you do and appreciate the effort and dedication.

Wish we could afford more sports, but we're not DII anympre.

Lacrosse is going to cost $1 million dollars or more. UND might be competitive in lacrosse, but why add a sport that will most likely cost $1 million dollars when they need to cut $1.4 Million out of the budget.

I'm all for them adding lacrosse, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

8 hours ago, SiouxVolley said:

Seems like your desperate for Kelley to come back with his empty platitudes.

Loss of a sport is not like the loss of a life or career, as you seem to say.  DI sports is a business, and what doesn't pay or help with awareness for the U goes out the window.  It's not a nursery school anymore.

Spoken like a true UND sports fan, rather than a fan of the University of North Dakota. Your compassion is underwhelming, to say the least, as is your appreciation for all that a university entails. And how on earth are layoffs and program terminations "not like the loss of a career"...that is exactly what is happening when employees lose employment and athletes (who do not or cannot transfer) lose playing opportunities.

Enjoy your 4-5 sports offerings, if that many make your preferred cut. It's attitudes like yours that will hasten the demise of college athletics, which is most certainly not a business. 

[The Sicatoka]

7 hours ago, cberkas said:

Lacrosse is going to cost $1 million dollars or more. UND might be competitive in lacrosse, but why add a sport that will most likely cost $1 million dollars when they need to cut $1.4 Million out of the budget.

I'm all for them adding lacrosse, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

The numbers I have say M/W S&D cost about $949k and bring in about $70k. I assume the income is camps or donations. 

I've been for lacrosse for a while for UND. We could raid Canada for (overage ) mens and womens teams. We could also raid the MSP and DEN metros for western players. And honestly, there are a lot of good athletes around here that are too small for DI BB or DI FB but that could play lax given time to learn (think: red shirt year). 

UND could do camps to replace the other income. But, UND could play in the HPC and maybe actually gate some income also. 

[AJS]

3 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Spoken like a true UND sports fan, rather than a fan of the University of North Dakota. Your compassion is underwhelming, to say the least, as is your appreciation for all that a university entails. And how on earth are layoffs and program terminations "not like the loss of a career"...that is exactly what is happening when employees lose employment and athletes (who do not or cannot transfer) lose playing opportunities.

Enjoy your 4-5 sports offerings, if that many make your preferred cut. It's attitudes like yours that will hasten the demise of college athletics, which is most certainly not a business. 

You are the worst, imo

[mksioux]

18 hours ago, UNDBIZ said:

With NO facility costs attributed to WIH and giving no credit to FB for Champions Club donations associated with FB season tickets or apparel licensing revenue or media contract revenue or sponsorship revenue, yes FB has "lost" the most money the past few years.  Like jdub said, one needs to remember football has 4 times the student athletes of the other major programs and it's a sport the community and alumni actually care about.

And football has been around for 122 years, which ought to count for something.  

I don't think any talk about the football deficit is fair unless you have apples to apples accounting, which is sorely lacking.  If the IAC could have done one useful thing it would be to force the athletic department to clean up its act on how it allocates revenues and expenses and be much more transparent with its accounting.  

[homer]

4 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Spoken like a true UND sports fan, rather than a fan of the University of North Dakota. Your compassion is underwhelming, to say the least, as is your appreciation for all that a university entails. And how on earth are layoffs and program terminations "not like the loss of a career"...that is exactly what is happening when employees lose employment and athletes (who do not or cannot transfer) lose playing opportunities.

Enjoy your 4-5 sports offerings, if that many make your preferred cut. It's attitudes like yours that will hasten the demise of college athletics, which is most certainly not a business. 

I assume this will be handled as in the past and if an athlete chooses not to transfer they would retain their scholarship.  Seems fair.  

I also imagine coaches would be paid out their agreed upon contracts.  

[mksioux]

16 hours ago, SiouxVolley said:

Cutting is never pleasant no matter how it is done.

This true, which is why I'd like to see the cuts actually make a big difference in the budget.  I don't like the idea of creating this much damage on people's lives by nibbling around the edges and potentially just putting a band-aid on the problem.  If you have to cut sports, do it in a way that will solve the problem for years to come.  I really hope that will be the case here, but protecting women's hockey from scrutiny makes me wonder.  

[jdub27]

13 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Before we celebrate the man's genius, let us remember that his role is being relegated to that of a butcher. He will literally reduce the footprint of UND Athletics in ways unimaginable not long ago. None of the programs deserves to be cut, and none deserves to be spared more than another. Balancing the budget on the backs of innocent programs, coaches, and students. I'm not so sure being "inept" at ruthless, arbitrary decision-making with painful consequences and zero objective guidance is a bad thing. But that's why he's paid the big bucks.

How was this unimaginable? It should have been done a decade ago and there are people within UND who stated at the time of the D-1 move that it was only a matter of time. What is almost more unimaginable is that it took this long. There are a lot of innocent programs, coaches and students who's programs bring in no revenue and cost a significant amount on the expense side (and for the record I enjoy watching many of these programs compete). Besides cuts, how else is there any possible way to balance the budget? Spread resources even more thin? State funding has been chopped so that isn't an option. The non-revenue sports are going to magically start producing revenue. Cutting the budget is the only viable alternative. I won't argue that I have disagreed with some of the decisions that have been made, processes used to come up with them and who has been effected, but there are reasons those decisions were made even though I don't agree with them. Communicating those a little more clear would helps things as well.

It seems you are projecting a lot of anger and blame on someone who is finally standing up, cleaning up a mess long in the making and facing tough decisions that need to be made to make the remaining programs stronger. I'd love if UND could sponsor even more sports than they already do, providing limitless opportunities for student athletes. Unfortunately that is not a reality because that requires a lot of money that is not available. Based on current realities, UND needs to figure out what it is going to sponsor and properly fund those programs. I'm happy to see it appears that is exactly what they are working on doing.

[Oxbow6]

15 minutes ago, mksioux said:

This true, which is why I'd like to see the cuts actually make a big difference in the budget.  I don't like the idea of creating this much damage on people's lives by nibbling around the edges and potentially just putting a band-aid on the problem.  If you have to cut sports, do it in a way that will solve the problem for years to come.  I really hope that will be the case here, but protecting women's hockey from scrutiny makes me wonder.  

Exactly......do it right this time around so we don't wind up with another S**t Show in the future.

[The Sicatoka]

4 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

... college athletics, which is most certainly not a business. 

You're right. It's not a business. It's a subsidized charity far too often. And with large expenses no less. 

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Exactly......do it right this time around so we don't wind up with another S**t Show in the future.

When Kennedy said it's his intention to do this once in his tenure gave me hope. 

[supersioux]

Here's a question...if enrollement was where it was 3 or 4 years ago, would the budget be an issue?  Sometimes the real issue is in a much different place than the actual one.  Or do we really need to offer FCOA, I believe we are the only Big Sky School doing this.  What I have a hard time with is we just dumped 30 million into a practice facility (which I agree is needed) but now are asking 6 programs to parade through a meeting and beg to be saved.  With fewer sports, I assume we will cut from the SID, Strength, Athletic Training, Athletic Administration as there will be significantly fewer student athletes...but we all know that won't happen.

For the record I'm on the side of keeping the sports, they drive enrollement, create alumni, contribute to the campus culture, etc.  So how would I solve the budget issue...first cut FCOA, second freeze salaries, third be transparent about the amount of money that needs to be raised, forth look at the number of contests some of the olympic sports play and adjust that number.  If softball play 56 games, mandate that they play 50, if soccer plays 20 mandate they play 18, etc.

There are other ways...it just takes leadership and thinking outside the box.

[fightingsioux4life]

7 minutes ago, supersioux said:

Here's a question...if enrollement was where it was 3 or 4 years ago, would the budget be an issue?  Sometimes the real issue is in a much different place than the actual one.  Or do we really need to offer FCOA, I believe we are the only Big Sky School doing this.  What I have a hard time with is we just dumped 30 million into a practice facility (which I agree is needed) but now are asking 6 programs to parade through a meeting and beg to be saved.  With fewer sports, I assume we will cut from the SID, Strength, Athletic Training, Athletic Administration as there will be significantly fewer student athletes...but we all know that won't happen.

For the record I'm on the side of keeping the sports, they drive enrollement, create alumni, contribute to the campus culture, etc.  So how would I solve the budget issue...first cut FCOA, second freeze salaries, third be transparent about the amount of money that needs to be raised, forth look at the number of contests some of the olympic sports play and adjust that number.  If softball play 56 games, mandate that they play 50, if soccer plays 20 mandate they play 18, etc.

There are other ways...it just takes leadership and thinking outside the box.

In other words, have a large number of mediocre sports and run the athletic department like high school. You must want NDSU to keep laughing at us and shoving their championships in our face. And I don't give a rat's a$$ what the rest of the Big Sky does with regard to FCOA, especially since we might move to the Slummit League in the near future (not that I agree with it, but it might happen nonetheless). We have to compete with the schools in our region for athletes, not in our conference. We might as well go back to Division II and the NSIC if we aren't going to offer FCOA.

You basically want to run the athletic department on a shoe-string budget with caps on games played and God knows what else. That is not what I want UND athletics to morph into. Thank heavens you are not in charge at Twamley or Hyslop.

[The Sicatoka]

8 minutes ago, supersioux said:

Here's a question...if enrollement was where it was 3 or 4 years ago, would the budget be an issue?  

Wrong question: "If the price of a barrel of oil was where it was 3 or 4 years ago ... " is the correct question.

Enrollment really hasn't changed all that much. 

And the HPC was needed and it wasn't $30M, more like $10M. 

[Oxbow6]

40 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

When Kennedy said it's his intention to do this once in his tenure gave me hope. 

As you have mentioned numerous times he is a politician..............

[Tangolou]

33 minutes ago, supersioux said:

Here's a question...if enrollement was where it was 3 or 4 years ago, would the budget be an issue?  Sometimes the real issue is in a much different place than the actual one.  Or do we really need to offer FCOA, I believe we are the only Big Sky School doing this.  What I have a hard time with is we just dumped 30 million into a practice facility (which I agree is needed) but now are asking 6 programs to parade through a meeting and beg to be saved.  With fewer sports, I assume we will cut from the SID, Strength, Athletic Training, Athletic Administration as there will be significantly fewer student athletes...but we all know that won't happen.

For the record I'm on the side of keeping the sports, they drive enrollement, create alumni, contribute to the campus culture, etc.  So how would I solve the budget issue...first cut FCOA, second freeze salaries, third be transparent about the amount of money that needs to be raised, forth look at the number of contests some of the olympic sports play and adjust that number.  If softball play 56 games, mandate that they play 50, if soccer plays 20 mandate they play 18, etc.

There are other ways...it just takes leadership and thinking outside the box.

I don't think the objective of all this is to save 1.4 million. The objective is to make the entire athletic program stronger. What UND has been doing was to fund one program (Men's Hockey), at the highest level and everyone else got the scraps. It appears that Schafer and Kennedy want to fund fewer sports at a championship level thus making the entire department stronger. You are right about one thing, it takes leadership. Leaders do what's best for the entire team not just what's best for each separate individual.

[dmksioux]

14 minutes ago, Tangolou said:

I don't think the objective of all this is to save 1.4 million. The objective is to make the entire athletic program stronger. What UND has been doing was to fund one program (Men's Hockey), at the highest level and everyone else got the scraps. It appears that Schafer and Kennedy want to fund fewer sports, so they can compete at a championship level thus making the entire department stronger. You are right about one thing, it takes leadership. Leaders do what's best for the entire team not just what's best for each separate individual.

I clarified your post a bit...otherwise it reads as though they want less competitive teams. At least that's how I initially read it.

[Tangolou]

7 minutes ago, dmksioux said:

I clarified your post a bit...otherwise it reads as though they want less competitive teams. At least that's how I initially read it.

Thanks, your version is better. That is what I meant.

[supersioux]

So are you prediciting championship programs across the board?  In what year 2017, 2018?  Women's hockey has been funded at a championship level...how's that working?

Again I'm all for funding teams at a level they can compete...I just believe it can be done without cutting sports.  I would argue that with FCOA, UND is funded better than most...shouldn't that result in championships?

[The Sicatoka]

From an OWH story on Dean Blais:

Quote

The fact that Baxter Arena lost $1.5 million in its first year. And that Blais lost his radio show this year.

Not sayin', jus' sayin'. 

[UND-1]

17 minutes ago, supersioux said:

So are you prediciting championship programs across the board?  In what year 2017, 2018?  Women's hockey has been funded at a championship level...how's that working?

Again I'm all for funding teams at a level they can compete...I just believe it can be done without cutting sports.  I would argue that with FCOA, UND is funded better than most...shouldn't that result in championships?

I don't see it as cutting sports to save money and meet the budget.  I see it as getting to the level they should be at, which is 15-17 sports.  With it comes the opportunity to use your resources on programs that were neglected it someway, making them stronger.